commit 9901f5b01b98eed21ff1ba37b9d5377b95a4a1e9 (tree)
parent 76447a368236fdd92fd8cf0447dbb80938e96eac
Author: Motiejus Jakštys <desired.mta@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:12:25 +0300
restructuring
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/II/Referatas/mj-referatas.tex b/II/Referatas/mj-referatas.tex
@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ version will help explain some of the deficiencies in the reviewed algorithms.
\label{fig:crossing}
\end{figure}
-\section{Comparison algorithms and parameters}
+\subsection{Comparison algorithms and parameters}
\label{sec:algs-and-params}
To visually evaluate the Žeimena sample, examples for {\DP} and {\VW}
@@ -204,11 +204,13 @@ value from the other, so the results are comparable?), {\DP} tolerance was
arbitrarily squared and fed to {\VW}. To author's eye, this provides comparable
and reasonable results, though could be researched.
-Chaikin's smoothing algorithm was generated using $nIterations = 5$. That
-number was chosen for better visual appeal at the expense of computational
-power. Smaller number iterations would cause retain visible angles, whereas
-larger number of iterations, like 5 (PostGIS supports values from 1 to 5),
-causes the resulting lines to be very smooth.
+Chaikin's smoothing algorithm was generated using $nIterations = 5$. Number of
+iterations is a trade-off between visual appeal and required computational
+power to execute the algorithm. PostGIS supports values between 1 and 5. Because
+computational power for this analysis is not a concern, the maximum value was chosen,
+making the resulting smoothened lines most visually appealing.
+
+\subsection{Visual comparison results}
As can be observed in table~\ref{tab:comparison-zeimena} on
page~\pageref{tab:comparison-zeimena}, both simplification algorithms convert
